I think it would have been better as the screenwriter wanted to NOT show David being killed. That way, it was a "Did they or didn't they?" plotline running throughout. And when Rupert opens the "coffin", it would be a "Pulp Fiction" moment where the audience is unaware of what's actually inside.
If you're not taking any steps forward, you're not moving at all.
The suspense is supposed to come from the idea that they could get caught. Therefore, I do think it's better to know from the start that they're guilty and specially that the body is in that room. However, the murder itself shouldn't have been shown. It didn't look very convincing (to me, at least).
It was also the most unrealistic and laughable murder in the history of film . Victim standing ( on own accord ) not reaching for the rope on his neck and yelling something before hand and then more like fainting opposed to dying . I had a good laugh.
I have to agree, though it's not something I would laugh at.
For me, the opening of the film always puts it behind the eight-ball. Firstly, a full-throated scream that rings completely false for a strangling murder -- how does someone scream like that with a rope wrapped round his throat? -- and then that shot of David just standing there, not even fighting back, with a rope wrapped around his throat so loosely it's barely making contact. You just can't strangle someone that way.
Was Hitchcock being daring even showing the murder at all in the late 40s? Maybe that's the problem.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Good point. He chose to show it and that very brief scene had these glitches. I would think that Hitchcock would have been more careful. Normally he paid attention to detail. I don't know why he was so sloppy here, especially since it's the opening scene. The rest of the film is perfection.